Judge Barrett on a Few Issues

Judicial philosophy from an article entitled 5 things to know about Amy Coney Barrett:

“If the judge is willing not to apply the law but to decide cases in a line, in accordance with personal preference rather than the law, then she’s not actually functioning as a judge at all. She’s functioning as a policymaker,” Barrett explained.

“And I would have had no interest in the job if the job was about policymaking and about making policy decisions,” the judge said. “My interest is in contributing to our tradition of judges upholding the rule of law.”

“There’s a lot of talk these days about the courts being mere political institutions. But if we reduce the courts to mere politics, then why do we need them? We already have politicians. Courts are not arenas for politics. Courts are places where judges discharge the duty to uphold the rule of law,” she said.

Barrett went on to cite Scalia, who “used to say that a judge who likes every result that she reaches is not a very good judge. In fact, she’s a very bad judge. The law simply does not align with a judge’s political preference or personal preference in every case.”

Some Senate Democrats want to get on with the impeachment trial and are fed up with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s delays and gamesmanship.  Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said it most strongly:

“The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico.

“So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over.”

“History will be kind to me because I intend to write it” is often ascribed to Winston Churchill.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh could do little better in presenting his case for history than this after-action report by Hemingway, a reporter for the Federalist and Severino, a former Thomas clerk and a participant in many of the judicial wars through her work at the Judicial Crisis Network.  Justice on Trial is chock-a-block with small, telling vignettes that only a participant or someone with impeccable sources could obtain.  For instance, Justice Kavanaugh’s suits being temporarily stored in a neighborhood kid’s treehouse and retrieved for him by the kid to avoid a hostile, untiring, and intrusive press siege of his house.  Similarly, the image of Senator Ted Cruz booming out “Treason!” in imitation of what the Democrats were likely to confront Justice Kavanaugh with will stick with the reader.

Under the leadership of Senators Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, James Lankford, and Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans have been confirming judges at record pace.  Democrats have not tried to substantively oppose most nominees (maybe because they are so well qualified) but have attempted to use obscure Senate procedures to do so.  An example was the “cloture rule:”

This involves Rule 22, which provides a time consuming process to end debate, a necessary step before the Senate can vote on confirmation. Under Rule 22, even when the Senate votes to end debate, there can be up to 30 more hours of consideration. In the past, the minority party cooperated to informally schedule a final confirmation vote. Today, Democrats will not cooperate on anything, forcing the Senate to use this drawn out process for nearly every nomination, including those with no actual opposition.

The Senate has taken six times as many of these unnecessary cloture votes as during the same period under the previous nine presidents combined. You read that right. Even though the Senate votes to end debate every time, Democrats insist that the clock keep running for those 30 hours of debate after cloture. Even worse, they almost never spend time on the Senate floor actually debating these nominations.

Today, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s replacement on the D.C. Circuit, Neomi Rao, was confirmed.  This was yet another “victory” in the effort to confirm great judges and justices.  The results are starting to show. 

Senate Judiciary Democrats are once again facing criticism for their treatment of a judicial nominee. However this time it comes from an unexpected source, the Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii. She wrote: 

While I oppose the nomination of Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, I stand strongly against those who are fomenting religious bigotry, citing as disqualifiers Buescher’s Catholicism and his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. If Buescher is “unqualified” because of his Catholicism and affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, then President John F. Kennedy, and the 'liberal lion of the Senate' Ted Kennedy would have been “unqualified” for the same reasons.  

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that there "shall be no religious test" for any seeking to serve in public office.
No American should be told that his or her public service is unwelcome because “the dogma lives loudly within you” as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said to Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearings in 2017 to serve as U.S. Circuit Court judge in the 7th Circuit.

If you read the Huffington Post, you would have to believe that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are out of control and acted in an unprecedented fashion yesterday when they held hearings.  The reality is that Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was merely doing what he made an agreement with Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein to do.  Meanwhile, led by Ranking Member Feinstein, Senate Democrats have brought unprecedented indignity and degradation to the modern Senate. 

NEW: In a detailed, 29-page letter Chairman @ChuckGrassley has referred Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick to the Attorney General and FBI Director for criminal investigation for providing false statements, obstructing investigations, and conspiracy.https://t.co/ZjQWtnqQOM pic.twitter.com/DNYNGxel4K

— Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) October 25, 2018

Today, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote in The Daily Caller about how Senator Dianne Feinstein has harmed the Senate, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh through the politically calculating way she handled the accusations made by Dr. Ford against Judge Kavanaugh.

Today's continuation of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh was a long, heart-wrenching day of testimony by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.  Both described how their families have faced threats and harassment since Dr. Ford's accusations were made public 10 days ago.  

Judge Kavanaugh gave compelling testimony, with specific and detailed recollection. His testimony is corroborated by multiple other statements and evidence. The Democrats’ disgraceful smear campaign of character assassination must come to an end. It’s time for the Senate to vote.

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) September 27, 2018

Here are some of the remarkable moments from the day:

Thomas Jipping reminds us that the smears against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, while reprehensible, are just the latest of the inconsistent, partisan means by which Democrats have evaluated judicial nominees:

Partisan double standards, ignoring what really matters, smears, turning basic notions of fairness on their head — that is what it means to use “whatever means necessary.” Schumer is keeping his promise of opposing Kavanaugh with everything he has. It won’t be enough.